Breve historia de los Movimientos Sociales

programmes, given the fewer opportunities for interaction within the LLTTF programme.

Group Climate

Group climate scores will be examined using the three individual subscales of the measure; engagement, conflict, and avoidance. Measures were taken fortnightly for the extent of the programme. One individual did not complete the questionnaires for any of the group process measures. In an effort to deduce what may determine different scores across the different subscales, a raw item data analysis was also conducted for each subscale of the Group Climate Questionnaire and also for the Cohesion to the Facilitator measure.

Engagement

Figure 7.5 presents mean participant scores of engagement across the programme (see Appendix C-2 for individual ratings). Scores showed an overall slight increase over time with more individuals rating higher engagement by post programme. Scores across the programme predominantly ranged from two to four out of a possible six points, with one participant reporting a score of one during the first week of measurement.

Increases in engagement across the programme were noted for seven participants. A particularly clear increase in engagement was reported for one individual, while other cases showed more varied increases. Several participants were absent for certain measurement points and therefore patterns of change are difficult to ascertain. Three participants displayed no change over time, maintaining moderate engagement scores across the programme.

Figure 7.5. Mean Engagement subscale scores on the Group Climate Questionnaire- Short Form (GCQ-SF) across the LLTTF programme.

Engagement Subscale Raw Item Analysis. Of the items comprising the engagement subscale, one item was consistently rated highly by participants, particularly across the last three measurement points (The members felt what was happening was important and there was a sense of participation). Scores on another item also increased slightly over time (The members liked and cared about each other). Two items were initially rated lower than the other items on this subscale (The members challenged and confronted each other in their efforts to sort things out; The members revealed sensitive personal information or feelings). Both increased slightly over the course of the programme, though the latter remained one of the lowest rated items across participants for this subscale, with many participants still rating ‘not at all’ for this item in the last week of the programme. Scores for the item ‘members tried to understand why they do

the things they do, tried to reason it out’ decreased over time. There seemed to be no

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 2 4 6 8 M Ean En gage m e n t su b scale Sc o re (GC Q -SF) Week

clear cause of increases or decreases on this subscale over time, item ratings fluctuated across weeks, both within and between participants.

Conflict

Figure 7.6 presents participant scores on the conflict subscale for programme completers (see Appendix C-2 for individual ratings). Overall, scores for this subscale were very low indicating little perception of conflict by participants in the programme. Two participants reported no conflict for the entirety of the programme and another also did not report any conflict, however was absent for two of the four measurement points. Two cases demonstrated a decrease in conflict across time, though scores were very low to begin with. Remaining participants showed a varied pattern of change across the programme. The individual who reported the highest levels of conflict across all participants of measurement rated conflict in the group as significantly higher than all other participants across all weeks of measurement, with a highest rating of five out of a possible six points in week four of the programme. Scores for this individual showed a decrease in the last week of the programme with a rating of two.

Conflict Subscale Raw Item Analysis. Participant ratings on the conflict subscale were very low overall. With the exception of one participant, all individuals responded to two of the four items on this subscale with “not at all” for each measurement point (There was friction and anger between the members; The members rejected and distrusted each other). The participant who rated positively on this item also rated higher than other participants on the other items of this subscale. The two items which were primarily responsible for any changes in score across time were the two most highly rated items on the conflict subscale (The members were distant and withdrawn from each other;

The members appeared tense and anxious). The former decreased over time, and ratings on the latter were somewhat inconsistent, with some participants scoring the item higher, particularly in the first half of the programme.

Figure 7.6. Mean Conflict subscale scores on the Group Climate Questionnaire- Short

Form across the LLTTF programme.

Avoidance

Figure 7.7 graphically presents mean scores on the avoidance subscale for programme completers (see Appendix C-2 for individual ratings). Participants reported highest scores on this subscale compared with the other two subscales on the GCQ-SF measure. Overall, avoidance scores increased across measurement points. Five participants reported a clear increase in avoidance across the programme. Other participants demonstrated more gradual or varied increases, with some reporting relatively high levels of perceived avoidance by the last week of the programme. Several participants did not show any change in score in comparing first and last measurement points and one participant showed a varied decrease in avoidance rating.

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 2 4 6 8 Mean Confl ict subscale score (GCQ -S F) Week

Avoidance Subscale Raw Item Analysis. The avoidance subscale was the highest rated subscale overall. Avoidance ratings increased over time and when examining raw data it could be seen that some items where more influential in creating this increase than others. One item experienced little change across programme duration (The members avoided looking at important issues going on between themselves). Another item had the highest ratings overall but only increased slightly over the course of the programme (The members depended on the group leader(s) for direction). This suggests that the group members felt that the group leader was largely responsible for directing the process of the programme. The last item of the avoidance subscale had low ratings initially but ratings increased during the programme and by the end were in the moderate to very high range for most participants (The members appeared to do things the way they thought would be acceptable to the group).

Figure 7.7. Mean Avoidance subscale scores on the Group Climate Questionnaire-

Short Form across the LLTTF programme. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 Mean A voi dance subscale Sc ore (GCQ -S F) Week

Hypothesis 6. A significant difference in level of perceived group cohesion at mid-